Either Newton is wrong or the NIST is wrong... You decide!

Discussion in '9/11' started by SamSkwamch, Jun 8, 2016.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,873
    Likes Received:
    3,856
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I was pretty specific with my request. You don't have to read my mind. You just have to read my post.

    Your assertion is that there is zero visible "jolt" in a video. That's not what I'm asking you. I'm asking you for your expected measurement. I want a prediction from you to explain what it is you expected to see so I can verify if your expectation is mathematically correct.

    If this is a problem of simple grade school physics why is it that you can't do the simple grade school math and provide me with a number that demonstrates empirically the phenomenon you expected to see in the videos? You can't just claim that you can't see something in a video and then not have a clue what it is that should be seen.
     
  2. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,873
    Likes Received:
    3,856
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In 1080P I could be standing on top of the tower waving a 10 foot long banner with 12 inch block letters on it back and forth, and not only would you not be able to read the message, you might not be able to tell it was moving.

    It's an incredibly amazing claim that you should see a "jolt" in such a video when you can't even provide any details about the jolt at all.
     
  3. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,595
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I did and I responded.

    Yes I said that a few times.

    I don't have any "expected" measurements. I expect to see collisions, visible jolts and hesitations during a naturally collapsing massive building, many of them and at different time intervals. Don't you? Or do you expect to see what looks like a perfectly executed CD?

    See above. You can do the math if it helps to explain your belief(s), I don't need that, I have more than enough information at my disposal. As to the measured acceleration of the collapses, that was already done for me and I have no reason to doubt it since it reasonably matches my observations. NIST concurs as published in their WTC7 report. If you feel it's inaccurate, you can measure it for yourself.

    See above, I don't believe I owe you anything. What explains what happened (as far as I'm concerned) is that the 3 buildings were CD'd. If it doesn't explain it to you then you do the math and the physics and comfort yourself with numbers that support the official story that these were natural collapses as a result of the events if that's what you accept. I don't need to do that for you or anyone. I'm not here to convince you of anything or to change your mind about anything, it's not my job nor my intent.

    I can easily claim what I don't see is what I don't see if I don't see it. Who says I don't have a clue as to what should be seen? Is there something you don't understand about visible jolts/hesitations?
     
  4. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,595
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's possible, but it's irrelevant to the collapse of 3 buildings on 9/11.

    Regardless of how "amazed" you pretend to be, it is what it is and it is confirmed by others who have measured it, including NIST, the official storyteller.
     
  5. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,489
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Notice the misdirection of the video about upward weight. Force is mass times acceleration so downward force is much greater than the mass at rest.

    Also the comparison early in the video to a demolition does not take into account the difference in construction of the buildings.

    Typical.
     
  6. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,873
    Likes Received:
    3,856
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is as much as I expected.

    Truthers come in here crowing about high school physics, but when asked to demonstrate their claims empirically we get crickets. They claim the NIST scientists don't know what they were doing, or worse, that the scientists are complicit in a crime, but the truthers can't competently lay out a scientific argument for why they make these claims. Do they think a research paper that says, "you're wrong because high school physics & common sense" should be taken seriously by anyone? What a joke.

    I'll give them one last chance on this subject. Prove me wrong. The resulting inelastic impact between the top block and bottom block of the collapse slowed the acceleration of the top block by 2 meters per second per second (4 1/2 mph) for 1 second due to the energy required to buckle the columns in the region of the impact.

    A 1 second 5 mph change in velocity could not be detectable in the videos we possess of the event.
     
  7. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,595
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't know anything about "they" but I'm 100% sure the NIST engineers knew exactly what they were doing and that the fraud they perpetrated is complicity to the 9/11 crime. They were only incompetent in that they thought they could fool everyone with their shenanigans.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/458597-nist-9-11-scam-exposed-all-its-glory.html

    (note I will get to their twin tower investigation scam after the WTC7 investigation scam. For now there's an incredible amount of evidence that their WTC7 investigation is a total scam so I'm far from done with that)
     
  8. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,873
    Likes Received:
    3,856
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You have no business calling anyone a fraud when you can't demonstrate your premise for calling something a fraud.
     
  9. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,595
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's true however, the evidence of the fraud perpetrated by NIST is crystal clear and overwhelming and has been identified in meticulous detail by experts much better qualified than I. As such I have every right to call a fraud a fraud when that's what it is. Under normal circumstances, this type of fraud would and should be prosecuted by a valid court of law but the US government will never prosecute itself since it wants to maintain the 9/11 myth for the purpose of wealth and power. Whether you want to believe that what NIST did is legitimate or not is strictly your call, it isn't my job to convince you of anything. I post the facts, what you do with them is your business. You are certainly invited to show if you can, in technical detail, what it is you disagree with in the thread I provided the link to. I say technical detail because that is what is being presented in the thread. I sincerely doubt you have the proper background and the standing to be able to do so but that's another matter. If you can't legitimately do that then any conclusion(s) you might have that contradict the findings are not based on reality and are strictly based on your personal denying opinions.
     
  10. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,873
    Likes Received:
    3,856
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think you need to take inventory of the horse manure you're consuming at face value because it supports your predetermined conclusion. It's quite ironic that you expect me to believe it's ambrosia when I have conclusively demonstrated (and you clearly now admit) that you have such a poor understanding of what that horse manure contains.

    Zero technical detail has been provided in this thread despite repeated requests for technical detail.
     
  11. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,595
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Translation, you are not qualified to nor can you possibly tackle anything presented in the thread I provided the link to. What a surprise.
     
  12. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,873
    Likes Received:
    3,856
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're equally as poor a translator as you are a physicist & a conspiracy theorist.

    I've asked you for the numbers repeatedly.

    Ball's been in your court this whole time.
     
  13. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,595
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I understand you won't admit you can't do it (or won't because you have no way to show that any of it is wrong). All that bluster is just that. I never said I was a physicist and obviously, neither are you. One doesn't need to be a physicist, an attorney or any kind of expert to recognize fraud when it's so obvious. All one needs is common sense.

    Already answered. You didn't like my answer? That's quite ok with me.
     
  14. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,873
    Likes Received:
    3,856
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Please link to the post in which you provide the claimed "technical detail" that answers the question you claim has already been answered.
     
  15. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,595
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I said I answered the question, try reading for comprehension.
     
  16. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,873
    Likes Received:
    3,856
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I say you're wrong. Try using math.
     
  17. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,595
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And? I can say the same thing, you're wrong.

    Try using common sense.
     
  18. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,873
    Likes Received:
    3,856
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What claim did I make that could be considered wrong? I'm asking you to back up your argument with some actual science. You said this thread is all about technical data. Please point out where it is, or demonstrate it now. Otherwise you have not answered the question or supported your claim in any way.

    Common sense is not technical data. I thought this was a problem that can be explained using principals that could be understood by a high school student. Do you not have the proper background and standing to be able to do high school math?

    Your claim is that videos of the event should contain evidence of a change in acceleration that you call a "Visible Jolt" This so called common sense claim is not a technical evaluation of the collapse. A technical evaluation would tell me the expected magnitude & duration of the change in acceleration. (for the slow high school students in the back I want to know how much & how long the truthers think the building should have slowed down). A technical evaluation would also attempt to prove that the magnitude of the change in acceleration is something that could be viewed on a video recording.
     
  19. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,595
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This:

    In response to:

    Which is clearly identified here, in meticulous technical detail and you haven't made any attempt to address (if you can):

    http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/458597-nist-9-11-scam-exposed-all-its-glory.html

    That's correct, however technical data can and does expose NIST's fraud which leads to the common sense conclusion that NIST perpetrated a massive fraud.

    That's correct, the missing jolt/hesitation based on measurements of a constant accelerating descent of the 3 towers from videos is but one issue. While it may not be 100% accurate because it is taken from videos, it is clear enough:

    1. In one case, it is agreed and non-controversial (except for anonymous posters in various forums) that WTC7 was in free fall for 2.25s or 100 feet or 8 stories from the moment the roof line began to descend.
    2. The twin towers have been measured at collapsing at a constant rate of 2/3 of free fall.
    3. No one has demonstrated any significant jolt/hesitation for any of the collapses.
    4. None of 1-3 above changes the findings of NIST's gross errors, some admitted to, some not but obvious, shown in the link provided above.
    5. And that based on #4, NIST admits/claims that they stand by their theory regardless of these major "errors" and refuses to correct their errors and revisit their theory with the corrections included. Common sense dictates that this is not science, it's fraud in itself.
     
  20. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,873
    Likes Received:
    3,856
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you want to show my opinion of your claim is wrong you need to support it. You've had plenty of opportunity. I must conclude that you're incapable of demonstrating the supposed high school math that verifies you claims.

    Why are you pointing me to a completely different thread with a completely different topic? You made the claim that THIS thread contains technical detail. Please support THIS claim here.

    Once again, please demonstrate the magnitude and duration of the phenomenon you say should have taken place, but did not take place due to your inability to see it on a video.

    Yeah, it's the one issue being discussed in this thread. Let's not use the typical truther tactic of temporarily abandoning losing arguments due to the inability to support them without first conceding that the line of argument is false. If this is not an argument that you can support then you should admit that it doesn't support your claim and abandon it in the future. In short, I'm not going to chase all your imaginary 7 foot tall invisible rabbits until you first admit that this 7 foot tall imaginary rabbit doesn't exist.

    What you witnessed was the collapse of the perimeter columns of WTC7. These columns are typically restrained by internal columns & beams that collapsed prior to the collapse of the external structure. Since this portion of the collapse took place inside the building behind the building's curtainwall, why should I have been able to observe "visible jolts?"

    What would have been a correct rate of acceleration? Please show your work.
     
  21. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,873
    Likes Received:
    3,856
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The way I see it there are multiple conclusions to this argument:

    1. The phenomenon did take place and it was unobserved.
    2. The phenomenon did take place and it was observed.
    3. The phenomenon did not take place and it should have
    4. The phenomenon did not take place and it should not have.

    You have attempted to hypothesize condition 3 using only a principle that you have not actually applied to the building. You have not ruled out 1, 2, or 4 by actually doing the math that the principle demonstrates. This is not how science works. You've simply made a hypothesis and then provided no experiment to attempt to falsify that hypothesis.
     
  22. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,595
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your opinion is that "{I} need to take inventory of the horse manure [I'm] consuming at face value because it supports [my] predetermined conclusion".

    This is a garbage opinion on several levels and perhaps I should have responded as I'm responding here in the first place. First, it states that I'm consuming "horse manure at face value" and second that it's because I have a "predetermined conclusion". It's bad enough that you post an opinion YOU can't support but now you want me to show YOUR garbage opinion is wrong and support it yet (which I did anyway). Are you joking? Perhaps you should first try to post something on an adult level and quit posting ridiculous opinions about me. Perhaps you should also try to review the contents of the thread I gave you the link to so you can take a crack at understanding the basis of why it is that I believe NIST committed fraud and why that evidence (and much more) fully supports my belief. When and if you can address my posts in a civil manner, perhaps I will respond in kind.
     
  23. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,595
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I will address NIST's contrived fantasy which is a theory (as admitted to by NIST) based on falsified/omitted data and which apparently you parrot.

    No, what EVERYONE (including YOU) can witness in the videos is an entire building descending symmetrically in one piece. What is clearly visible in all the videos are the roof line, the West Penthouse located on the roof and 3 walls descending in unison. No one can see one single column, never mind "the collapse of perimeter columns". If anyone can see "columns" in any of those videos, I would say they're either looking at something else entirely or hallucinating.

    You say "I think you need to take inventory of the horse manure you're consuming at face value because it supports your predetermined conclusion" but it's apparent that's exactly what you're doing. This is a theory peddled by NIST, claiming essentially that most of the interior of the building collapsed before the walls moved. While it's true that a small fraction of WTC7 dropped into the building (as seen by the collapse of the East Penthouse), there is NO EVIDENCE that suggests NIST's interior collapse theory (before the walls and most of the roof dropped) is based on reality and the evidence proves NIST deliberately falsified data to try to make their theory plausible. The burden of proof for NIST's theory rests with NIST and that is absent in any legitimate sense. If anything, NIST's theory can be characterized as "horse manure" and YOU are consuming it. Whether you're consuming it because it supports YOUR predetermined conclusion or not is arguable and irrelevant. NIST's theory is a proven fraud, plain and simple.
     
  24. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,873
    Likes Received:
    3,856
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I've repeatedly asked you to support the claim made in this thread. You haven't. You've specifically avoided my requests in fact. This can be because you know the claim is false, or you simply can't support it. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt by suggesting that you've swallowed this specific claim at face value. If you've truly swallowed this claim at face value rather than actively trying to deceive people by pushing a claim you know to be false, then I suggest you should assess the other claims you've swallowed. At best you're not very good at determining whether a claim is accurate or false. At worst you're peddling something you know to be a lie.

    Which would you rather I assume?
     
  25. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,873
    Likes Received:
    3,856
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What I witnessed is the East HVAC penthouse falling through the center of the building. You can see buckling in the perimeter columns following the HVAC collapse prior to the decent of the roof line. You can see windows shattering as the massive penthouse crashes through the middle of the structure. Clearly the collapse did not take place"symmetrically in one piece."
     

Share This Page